Potentiality, political protest and constituent power: A response to the special issue

IF 1.1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Michael P. A. Murphy
{"title":"Potentiality, political protest and constituent power: A response to the special issue","authors":"Michael P. A. Murphy","doi":"10.1177/1755088219860858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emergent forms of political protest and constitution often provide limit cases for their contemporary theoretical models, and transnational protest movements from Occupy to Democracy in Europe 2025 are no exception. The recent special issue of the Journal of International Political Theory offers a number of different conceptual paths towards understanding these developments, revising and refreshing categories like civil disobedience, opposition, resistance, as well as constituent and destituent power. However, the plurality of perspectives in the special issue leads to a certain degree of uncertainty in the use of terms. This response to the special issue begins with a reflection on its major conceptual developments, addresses the missed encounter with Giorgio Agamben’s theory of ‘destituent potential’ and develops a framework for contrasting different theoretical approaches to political protest and constitution through their relation to potentiality. This taxonomy of emergent forms of political protest and constitution complements the substantial theoretical developments undertaken in the special issue by making the important conceptual relationships between them more readily visible. As well, by demonstrating the applicability of potentiality to the study of International Relations, this framework contributes to the project of the theoretical investigation of international politics.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1755088219860858","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088219860858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Emergent forms of political protest and constitution often provide limit cases for their contemporary theoretical models, and transnational protest movements from Occupy to Democracy in Europe 2025 are no exception. The recent special issue of the Journal of International Political Theory offers a number of different conceptual paths towards understanding these developments, revising and refreshing categories like civil disobedience, opposition, resistance, as well as constituent and destituent power. However, the plurality of perspectives in the special issue leads to a certain degree of uncertainty in the use of terms. This response to the special issue begins with a reflection on its major conceptual developments, addresses the missed encounter with Giorgio Agamben’s theory of ‘destituent potential’ and develops a framework for contrasting different theoretical approaches to political protest and constitution through their relation to potentiality. This taxonomy of emergent forms of political protest and constitution complements the substantial theoretical developments undertaken in the special issue by making the important conceptual relationships between them more readily visible. As well, by demonstrating the applicability of potentiality to the study of International Relations, this framework contributes to the project of the theoretical investigation of international politics.
潜在性、政治抗议和选民权力:对这一特殊问题的回应
新兴形式的政治抗议和宪法往往为其当代理论模型提供了有限的案例,从“占领”到“2025年欧洲民主”的跨国抗议运动也不例外。最近出版的《国际政治理论杂志》特刊提供了许多不同的概念路径来理解这些发展,修改和更新了公民抗命、反对、抵抗以及组成力量和破坏力量等类别。然而,特刊中视角的多样性导致术语的使用存在一定程度的不确定性。这一对特刊的回应始于对其主要概念发展的反思,解决了与乔治·阿甘本的“破坏潜力”理论的错失,并通过政治抗议和宪法与潜力的关系,建立了一个对比不同理论方法的框架。这种对政治抗议和宪法的新兴形式的分类,通过使它们之间的重要概念关系更加明显,补充了特刊中进行的实质性理论发展。同时,该框架通过展示国际关系研究的适用性,为国际政治理论研究项目做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信